RWJF releases report on employer-sponsored coverage in Massachusetts

Posted on October 18, 2012 |
No Comments

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation published a report by grantee Mark A. Hall, J.D., entitled “Employers’ Use of Health Insurance Exchanges: Lessons from Massachusetts.” Hall, a professor of law and public health in the Division of Public Health Sciences at Wake Forest University Medical School, is completing a qualitative investigation of employers’ use of the Massachusetts Connector in order to inform states and the federal government about best strategies for the design and operation of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) small-group health insurance exchanges and market regulations.

No Comments

A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released last week clarified confusion associated with how companies treat their part-time and seasonal workers, and how this treatment may make them eligible for employer penalties under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The CRS report includes updated information on employer penalties, which was provided by IRS guidance released late last year. According to the ACA, employers with a minimum of 50 full-time equivalent employees must offer affordable and adequate health insurance to their employees, or run the risk of receiving significant penalties under the law. The confusion on the issue stems from the difference in calculating which businesses are subject to penalties, and the IRS guidance helps to clarify this issue by explaining the ACA's classification of a full-time employee and provisions related to seasonal workers.

In April 2006, Massachusetts enacted a health care reform bill that resulted in significant gains in insurance coverage, access to and use of care, and the affordability of care for the Massachusetts population as a whole and, especially for lower-income adults. Many of the key features of the Massachusetts initiative were incorporated in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including an expansion of public coverage, subsidies for private coverage, a health insurance exchange, insurance market reforms, requirements for employers, and an individual mandate.
Some believe that when employers are required to offer health insurance coverage or make payments related to a worker, employers will reduce wages and/or other worker compensation over time to cover those new costs.
In a brief prepared by the Urban Institute on behalf of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation examines employment trends in Massachusetts as the state implemented health reform. Researchers found that between 2006 and 2010...

The Affordable Care Act's Health Benefit Exchanges (Exchanges) must be implemented in every state by January 1, 2014. The development of Exchanges will have a significant impact on how consumers access and sign up for coverage. National Academy of State Health Policy (NASHP) established the State Health Exchange Leadership Network, "a peer learning network for exchange leads." The purpose of the Network is to foster interaction and education as states move ahead with the design, construction, and execution of the Health Benefits Exchange market. This report examines key consumer-related issues and challenges that states must tackle as they plan and implement their Exchanges. Three main areas where consumers intersect with the Exchange are covered in the report...

State-based health insurance Exchanges are a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, facilitating expanded access to coverage for millions of individuals and employees of small businesses. The Exchanges will enable consumers to readily compare qualified health insurance options in order to select plans that best meet their needs. Premium and cost-sharing subsidies will make health coverage more affordable for low and moderate-income individuals. In this issue brief, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation reviews states' progress to date in creating health insurance exchanges. While some states have already taken major steps toward establishing an exchange, other states have struggled to pass legislation or have opted not to begin the process of establishing one.

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that Massachusetts will become the first State to partner with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to test a new model for providing coordinated, patient-centered care to dual eligible individuals enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid. Massachusetts and CMS will contract with Integrated Care Organizations (ICOs) to oversee the delivery of Medicare, Medicaid and expanded services for Medicare-Medicaid enrollees in Massachusetts. The program is expected to launch on April 1, 2013.

Previous updates have summarized final IRS regulations implementing provisions of the Affordable Care Act that provide premium tax credits to help low- and moderate-income individuals and families buy affordable health insurance through State health insurance Exchanges. The IRS regulations provide that premium assistance tax credits are available to all eligible state residents, regardless of whether their state Exchange is state-operated or federally facilitated. This Update examines a dispute that that has arisen regarding the availability of premium assistance tax credits in federally facilitated state Exchanges.

On May 16, 2012, the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a Draft Blueprint for Approval of Affordable State-based Exchanges (SBEs) and State Partnership Exchanges (SPEs). HHS also issued General Guidance on Federally Facilitated Exchanges (FFEs). Together, these two documents provide additional implementation information related to the final Exchange regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, (click here for the regulations) which broadly describe the structural and operational requirements for state Exchanges, specify the Exchange approval process, and provide for FFEs in states that do not elect to operate a state Exchange. The newest guidance amplifies on the approval process for both state-based Exchanges (SBEs) and state Partnership Exchanges (SPEs) as a sub-class of FFEs but with...

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a final rule[1] addressing two previous proposed rules: “Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans”[2] and “Exchange Functions in the Individual Market: Eligibility Determinations and Exchange Standards for Employers.”[3] The final rule addresses 1) minimum federal standards that States must meet to establish and operate exchanges, 2) the minimum standards that health insurance issuers must meet as Qualified Health Plans (QHPs), and 3) basic standards employers must meet to participate in the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchange. CMS indicates that certain portions of the rule will be considered interim final, and the agency will accept comments on certain sections.[4] CMS also indicates in the Preamble that additional details will be made available in future guidance and rulemaking, where appropriate. For information on the proposed rules, click here. This Update describes major changes made by CMS in the final rule.

This Update to the health insurance Exchange Implementation Brief examines a proposed regulation issued on August 17, 2011 as part of three proposed rules to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act related to health insurance affordability. Companion Updates explain the proposed Medicaid eligibility rule and the proposed rule related to health insurance premium tax credits; this Update focuses on Exchange functions related to determinations of eligibility for “Exchange participation and insurance affordability programs,” as well as standards for employer participation.

Bringing down the overall cost of health care while improving its quality for all Americans represents one of the central goals of health reform. Although reducing the number of people without health insurance will provide relief by curtailing much of the estimated $50 billion in annual cost-shifting onto the insured, the longer term challenges are more complex, because they involve structural change in how health care is organized, delivered, and paid for. Specifically, improving health care quality while reducing costs means doing two things simultaneously: moving away from a fragmented system oriented toward what has been termed a “piecework” approach to health care; and introducing new approaches that reward greater clinical integration and efficiencies aimed at creating equally effective but lower-cost care. To achieve these results, the concept of “value-based purchasing” has received increased attention.